On the same day that terrorists eleven years ago demolished the twin towers in New York, brought havoc to the Pentagon, and downed a passenger plane in the fields of Pennsylvania, I was still thinking about Sunday’s article in the New York Times titled “How Resilient Is Post-9 America?” In a nutshell we learn from the reporters, Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, that the Department of Homeland Security is new vested in all things “resilient” including as it were the very word “resiliency”.

If a population is “resilient”, goes DHS’s thought process, then it can resist the worst terrorists have to offer and bounce back, so the DHS paradigm goes, from the worst of disasters. Like the events of 9/11.

The U.S. military is apparently trying out a “resiliency” modular education program on their soldiers and the British even have a cabinet level position in “resiliency”.

So here we go again with the Starbuck’s brew of the day. Do the officials at DHS watch too much late night infomercials? Do they think that the latest trendy word is going to really prop us up after a real tragedy? Do they really think that Americans after Katrina, or the tornado victims last year in Missouri, or the Oklahomans after the Alfred P. Murrah building all would have been better off for their “resiliency” training? I hope not.

Can “organic” training to ward off terrorists and their ilk be far behind? How about “sustainability” training? Or, perhaps inevitably, organ and sustainable resilience training to counter acts of domestic and international terrorism against our country? Sounds good. Think I’ll go email the DHS right now about my new idea and, if they don’t soon reply, continue to sustain my own personal resiliency by approaching them in another more suitably organic fashion.